[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRLDAP-25?page=comments#action_59157 ]
karan singh malhi commented on DIRLDAP-25:
------------------------------------------
I think the version number is optional. look at the text below, i have taken it straight out
of the RFC, it clearly states that if the version number is missing, then implementation has
an option to treat it as an older format
1) For the LDIF format described in this document, the version
number MUST be "1". If the version number is absent,
implementations MAY choose to interpret the contents as an
older LDIF file format, supported by the University of
Michigan ldap-3.3 implementation [8].
> Ldif files must begin with "version: 1"
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: DIRLDAP-25
> URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DIRLDAP-25
> Project: Directory LDAP
> Type: Bug
> Versions: 0.8.0
> Environment: not relevant
> Reporter: Emmanuel Lecharny
> Assignee: Alex Karasulu
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 0.8.1
>
> RFC 2849 states that a ldif file must start with the 'version: 1' string. LdifParserImpl
does accept files that don't respect this rule.
> It was marked Trivial as this is really not an issue : Microsoft(TM) ldifde.exe tool
accept those kind of files (even worse : it does NOT accept files with a 'version: 1' string
...). I think that it should be an option, but at least, it should verify that the version
number is '1', if present ! (p.5, par.1)
> BTW, RFC2849 is not very clear on this subject, and could be interpreted as "If <version-spec>
is absent, ..." instead of "If version number is absent..."
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
If you want more information on JIRA, or have a bug to report see:
http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira